The World Championship Cycle

Here is an interesting read on Seirawan's comeback into chess.

What does Yasser Seirawan think about World Championship cycle and matches?

I don’t like the FIDE cycle at all. I think it is foolish, without sense, which is negative for sponsors, the public and for the players.

Let us start with the obvious, chess does not have a “Premiere League,” a “Grand Prix” or a “World Cup.” We are without a ‘season’, which exists in most sports. What we do have is a “World Chess Championship.” In my view, this should be an annual event. Full stop! Once you think about this and reach the same conclusion, questions start popping into mind, such as “how would an annual cycle work?” As well as other questions.

So let us step back and think of how would we create an ‘annual cycle’ with the ‘tools’ that we have in hand today? First we come to the obvious question, “What would the final competition look like?” Should we have a traditional one-on-one match? Or should the final competition feature a tournament with a double round robin or quadruple round robin final? If you stop and choose one or the other, there will be complaints from one set of fans who prefer one type (strongly) over the other. Once that awareness seeps in, the answer is obvious, you have both.

Today, we have a strange cycle, to say the least. Let us be generous, and say that today’s cycle is a fixed two year cycle where we have ‘continental championships’ bringing ‘qualifiers’ who compete in a 128 player knockout event, the World Cup. The top three players qualify for a Candidates Tournament, alongside three highest rated players (other than the existing World Champion), the runner-up to the previous Championship match and a nominee ‘wildcard’ from the Candidate’s Tournament organizer. From the Candidate’s Tournament a ‘Challenger’ emerges and then a match is played. All of these events are staged in a two year cycle (or so). It is what it is, and these are the tools we have today. I think the cycle is stupid. Why?

First of all, let us think about the role of the World Champion. Let us presume that the World Champion is the strongest, most interesting chess player in the world. That the fans, the public, the media all love him/her and thrill to their every contest! How exciting! Well guess what, in this entire ‘two year’ cycle the World Champion does nothing! He/she does not play. Not in the National Championship, the Continentals, not in the Knockout, not in the Candidates. The World Champion waits. When a Challenger is ‘born’ at long last, the World Champion comes out of the cocoon to play a twelve-game match. Doesn’t that strike you as a silly system? It certainly does me!

Imagine, if Barcelona won the Premiere League in Spain and was declared so good, they wouldn’t have to play in the League anymore. No, the team would wait for a challenger, and Barcelona would play a ‘match’ against the challenger. That’s all. The public would be confused. It is with a similar confusion as this example that I, a professional player, look at the world of chess. We have a stupid system for determining the World Champion. If it makes no sense to me, then how can I sell the system to a sponsor? For chess it gets even worse!

Let us look at the World Chess Championship and the elite world of chess today. We all know and love Viswanathand Anand. We couldn’t ask for a better chess ambassador. Vishy is a prince and a deserved World Champion! No questions. But is he head and shoulders above his colleagues and nearest rivals? I don’t think that even Vishy would make such a claim. Rather the contrary, that he does feel that he is an elite player with a few very close rivals. Yet Vishy is separated out of this elite group and put on a pedestal and removed from playing.

My sentiments exactly. Go to Chessbase for more.

Quah Seng Sun on Magnus Carlsen

After reading Quah Seng Sun's article on Magnus' withdrawal from the Candidates matches, I found it very disturbing that Seng Sun failed to paint a balance and true picture to the whole issue. So, to do the whole world justice and give them the whole truth, let us read what Magnus had to say when he withdrew from the World Championship cycle (with my comments in bold and parentheses).

To: FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov & FIDE World Championship Committee.

Reference is made to the ongoing World Championship cycle.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my decision not to take part in the planned Candidate Matches between March and May 2011.

After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008 - 2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a lengthy process of preparations and matches and, to perform at my best. (OK, Seng Sun pointed this out, but I will return to this point later)

Reigning champion privileges, the long (5 yr) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion. (These are the main points why Carlsen withdrew. Seng Sun did not point out at all that CHANGES were made DURING the cycle. Carlsen's frustration should be noted because how would you feel if the tournament directors were to change the format of the tournament after playing a few rounds? This is just common sense)

By providing you with 4 months notice before the earliest start of the Candidates as well as in time before you have presented player contracts or detailed regulations, I rest assured that you will be able to find an appropriate replacement.

Although the purpose of this letter is not to influence you to make further changes to the ongoing cycle, I would like to take the opportunity to present a few ideas about future cycles in line with our input to FIDE during the December 27th 2008 phone-conference between FIDE leaders and a group of top-level players.

In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when there are several players at approximately the same level in the world elite. (Why should one player have one out of two tickets to the final to the detriment of all remaining players in the world? Imagine that the winner of the 2010 Football World Cup would be directly qualified to the 2014 World Cup final while all the rest of the teams would have to fight for the other spot.) (While Seng Sun dismissed Carlsen's comparison to football, I believe that Carlsen could have just as easily picked another sport, like badminton or squash or pool or snooker or darts or swimming or athletics or... (need I say more...), where the World Champion is not seeded into the final. Seng Sun totally ignored the point that the champion is seeded straight to the final. The argument was that this system was not fair. Carlsen may have picked the wrong sport to compare chess against, but the point still stands. In what sport do we see a champion seeded right into the final, be it team or individual?)

One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events. (Seng Sun also made a big hoo-hah about this in saying that Carlsen totally wanted to throw away the match system and preferred a tournament system. Carlsen's intention was to provide an example of a fair system. He did not in any way say that he preferred a tournament system)

The proposal to abolish the privileges of the World Champion in the future is not in any way meant as criticism of, or an attack on, the reigning World Champion Viswanathan Anand, who is a worthy World Champion, a role model chess colleague and a highly esteemed opponent.

Rest assured that I am still motivated to play competitive chess. My current plan is to continue to participate in well-organised top-level tournaments and to try to maintain the no 1 spot on the rating list that I have successfully defended for most of 2010.

Best regards,

IGM Magnus Carlsen

Now, my take on the issue. While my comments above may appear to defend Carlsen's actions, rest assured that my intention was only to straighten out the facts misconstrued by poor reporting. I still think that Carlsen is being a stupid spoilt child for withdrawing from the cycle. Yes, the system is flawed. Yes, it is not fair. But it would only seem very unprofessional to just quit the World Championship cycle, considering his goal would be to prove that he is the best in the world. He should find added motivation that by winning the world championship with the odds stacked against him is even more proof that he is that great a player.

Despite all the muck-ups by FIDE throughout all these years, almost every other chess player has chosen to abide by the decisions of FIDE (poor or otherwise), and continue to compete. The renegades here are none other than Bobby Fischer, Kasparov and a few others. Is Carlsen trying to go down that road? Unlikely. However, I do think that he still has much to grow in terms of maturity and conduct. Even Kasparov has discontinued from working with him because of his poor work ethics. Maybe he is beginning to think he is too good for the system. While the technique and finesse in Carlsen's game is my cup of tea, I have always found it hard to root for a young upstart who has very little regard and respect for the system.